Guessing # unmatched spots

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
One of my sister’s friend told me that he was worried about not being able to match rad onc back in 2008 or 2009, though he was really into radiology, so he applied radiology instead and matched at one of the Harvard program. Hell, he may have actually applied radonc and just didn’t match and used that cover story.

Meanwhile, supposedly radiology has much less unmatched spots despite 5x more spots than rad onc. It’s crazy how fast things can change just over spam of 10 years.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
No nice discussion on Twitter about RO can happen without bashing SDN... Seems to have occurred a few times on the replies



This twitter discussion is hilariously naive.

Canaries in a Coal Mine

3 years ago Anthony Zietman raised the concept of medical students being canaries in a coal mine. "medical students will weigh their future prospects in RO vs. the "toxic smell" of the drawbacks of the field. If fewer med students apply, the field will become less competitive and the # of radiation oncologists will eventually self-regulate."

Well, we have come to a point where the field is self regulating and the response from the Ivory Tower is "we need to sell ourselves better to medical students."

Head in the sand...
 
I would like to think that at least some programs that did not fill would prefer to have an open spot rather than take a candidate who they feel does not past their bar. I know like 5 years ago when about 5 spots would routinely go unfilled during the match that this is what would happen at some places. But today's a different world so who knows. Some places will definitely approach this with the attitude that they only need a warm body to write notes and contour.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
No nice discussion on Twitter about RO can happen without bashing SDN...

The bashing of SDN seems silly to me. The Twitter users can make accounts on SDN just like the rest of us. The "Us vs. Them" mentality is bizarre considering that there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from posting on this site.

The only difference is--yes here on SDN we choose to remain anonymous. Anonymity is protected by SDN. When one writes only positive and political things, it is easy to be public such as on Twitter. If one writes negative or difficult things publicly, they need to feel that they are in a safe place. For many of us, including myself, we only feel safe to share our written opinions anonymously. Thus, SDN is the place where we can be real about our thoughts and observations, and not fear for our jobs or other forms of retribution.

If you have a difference of opinion, come share with us. We don't censor opinions, and positive opinions are just as welcome as negative ones. We just request that everyone keep it professional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11 users
Shows how desperate they are.

The bashing of SDN seems silly to me. The Twitter users can make accounts on SDN just like the rest of us. The "Us vs. Them" mentality is bizarre considering that there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from posting on this site.

The only difference is--yes here on SDN we choose to remain anonymous. Anonymity is protected by SDN. When one writes only positive and political things, it is easy to be public such as on Twitter. If one writes negative or difficult things publicly, they need to feel that they are in a safe place. For many of us, including myself, we only feel safe to share our written opinions anonymously. Thus, SDN is the place where we can be real about our thoughts and observations, and not fear for our jobs or other forms of retribution.

If you have a difference of opinion, come share with us. We don't censor opinions, and positive opinions are just as welcome as negative ones. We just request that everyone keep it professional.
 
We pride ourselves on being a data-driven specialty. We know the studies best at tumor board.

Sure, there's hyperbole on SDN...but look at the data (and the best post in that twitter feed with actual data is from Bob Press)...there are all kinds of indications that show unfavorable objective data for our field - more residents, less indications/fractions, board pass issues, etc.

The leaders need to address that data (over supply) and "debunk" the myths with real data that says otherwise...because right now I all see in that twitter thread are opinions and feelings from academia. We need a plan and the willingness to make difficult decisions (like at minimum stopping expansion).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
When one writes only positive and political things, it is easy to be public such as on Twitter. If one writes negative or difficult things publicly, they need to feel that they are in a safe place. For many of us, including myself, we only feel safe to share our written opinions anonymously. Thus, SDN is the place where we can be real about our thoughts and observations, and not fear for our jobs or other forms of retribution

Appreciate the thoughtful response, you've inspired me to dust off my acct :D

From my experiences currently as a resident at an academic program, there seems to be a disconnect between what I see and what SDN describes. Job market wise, things are better than I anticipated with reading SDN. Every one of our graduates has found a job with their desirable characteristics (location, academics, etc). The surprise has been the limited # of job offers, but this may be more due to 'real life' outside the path we've all shared to this point (e.g. 12 college acceptances, 12 medschool acceptances, 20 interview acceptances). I'd have to ask some of my non-med friends, but I get the impression their first jobs they had maybe 2 or 3 offers, so maybe it's not that surprising? Nobody has done fellowship, nobody has taken a job they didn't really want, nobody was relegated to East BF.

I share pessimism about the field, but mainly in the areas of academics and 'slice of the pie'. I've seen some surgeons avoid what's best for the patient because it doesn't involve surgery (whether by ignorance or greed). I've seen some med oncs avoid what's best for the patient because they wanted to try out a new drug first. I've also seen some med oncs laughably 'prescribe' explicit radiation regimens (yes, this was at an academic center, what a f*!king embarrassment). Given that we're a terminal referral field (e.g. we don't bring patients into the cancer center fold, they get referred to us), I am *very* worried about losing autonomy and becoming the guy in the basement they order around if it suits them. This is particularly concerning with the era of 'batch payment', where I worry the med onc is going to decide they'd rather blow $80k on a drug that works 20% of the time instead of properly referring the patient to receive $80k of ablative therapy to oligomets that works 95% of the time. As a small field, I think it's relatively easy for us to get bullied around. We have a MASSIVE value benefit to cancer care that I worry will be crunched because the "right" doctors aren't making money off it.

Academic radiation oncology has growing challenges as well. Many departments seem to have clashes with their cancer centers on how much $ they get to keep in department, and are being squeezed. This has led to salary freezes, reliance on buying up satellites (where they can pay a 'pseudo-academic' salary and reap the benefits), and reliance on residents (free labor as the GME office pays them) to do administrative tasks instead of spending $90k on an NP/PA. I've seen attending physicians grumble that they need 100% resident coverage so *they* don't have to do the prior auths, the referral requests, the records requests, the disability forms, the FMLA paperwork, the drug refill requests, etc. In departments without a heavy endowment/charitable funds, it seems like a common theme: Hospital/cancer center demands PP production, while paying academic salary and NOT hiring PP support staff; the dept chair still wants to be 'academic' so places academic demands (teaching, research) on faculty without being able to provide any support outside of residents. Thus, the solution comes down to "get more residents!" as they fulfill two needs: they're free labor to do the work of support staff, and they're the source of departmental research. This doesn't seem to be unique, and fully 'academic' situations seem to be the exception. I can see many residents in these systems feeling 'used' and not being shy about passing on those perceptions to prospective residents...

How does this compare to other specialties though? I can't really say as I haven't examined it much. I recall from my internship that MANY more of the residents were inclined towards private practice jobs, so there wasn't much interest in doing academic things (teaching, research, excelling on boards), and residents accordingly punched the clock just biding their time until pulling a real paycheck. There didn't seem to be as many 'self-inflicted' demands on the residents. It wasn't a small field either so if you pissed off your attending by refusing to do their scut work, BFD, they didn't have any role in you getting a job anyways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Appreciate the thoughtful response, you've inspired me to dust off my acct :D

From my experiences currently as a resident at an academic program, there seems to be a disconnect between what I see and what SDN describes. Job market wise, things are better than I anticipated with reading SDN. Every one of our graduates has found a job with their desirable characteristics (location, academics, etc). The surprise has been the limited # of job offers, but this may be more due to 'real life' outside the path we've all shared to this point (e.g. 12 college acceptances, 12 medschool acceptances, 20 interview acceptances). I'd have to ask some of my non-med friends, but I get the impression their first jobs they had maybe 2 or 3 offers, so maybe it's not that surprising? Nobody has done fellowship, nobody has taken a job they didn't really want, nobody was relegated to East BF.

I share pessimism about the field, but mainly in the areas of academics and 'slice of the pie'. I've seen some surgeons avoid what's best for the patient because it doesn't involve surgery (whether by ignorance or greed). I've seen some med oncs avoid what's best for the patient because they wanted to try out a new drug first. I've also seen some med oncs laughably 'prescribe' explicit radiation regimens (yes, this was at an academic center, what a f*!king embarrassment). Given that we're a terminal referral field (e.g. we don't bring patients into the cancer center fold, they get referred to us), I am *very* worried about losing autonomy and becoming the guy in the basement they order around if it suits them. This is particularly concerning with the era of 'batch payment', where I worry the med onc is going to decide they'd rather blow $80k on a drug that works 20% of the time instead of properly referring the patient to receive $80k of ablative therapy to oligomets that works 95% of the time. As a small field, I think it's relatively easy for us to get bullied around. We have a MASSIVE value benefit to cancer care that I worry will be crunched because the "right" doctors aren't making money off it.

Academic radiation oncology has growing challenges as well. Many departments seem to have clashes with their cancer centers on how much $ they get to keep in department, and are being squeezed. This has led to salary freezes, reliance on buying up satellites (where they can pay a 'pseudo-academic' salary and reap the benefits), and reliance on residents (free labor as the GME office pays them) to do administrative tasks instead of spending $90k on an NP/PA. I've seen attending physicians grumble that they need 100% resident coverage so *they* don't have to do the prior auths, the referral requests, the records requests, the disability forms, the FMLA paperwork, the drug refill requests, etc. In departments without a heavy endowment/charitable funds, it seems like a common theme: Hospital/cancer center demands PP production, while paying academic salary and NOT hiring PP support staff; the dept chair still wants to be 'academic' so places academic demands (teaching, research) on faculty without being able to provide any support outside of residents. Thus, the solution comes down to "get more residents!" as they fulfill two needs: they're free labor to do the work of support staff, and they're the source of departmental research. This doesn't seem to be unique, and fully 'academic' situations seem to be the exception. I can see many residents in these systems feeling 'used' and not being shy about passing on those perceptions to prospective residents...

How does this compare to other specialties though? I can't really say as I haven't examined it much. I recall from my internship that MANY more of the residents were inclined towards private practice jobs, so there wasn't much interest in doing academic things (teaching, research, excelling on boards), and residents accordingly punched the clock just biding their time until pulling a real paycheck. There didn't seem to be as many 'self-inflicted' demands on the residents. It wasn't a small field either so if you pissed off your attending by refusing to do their scut work, BFD, they didn't have any role in you getting a job anyways.
Whatever the job market is now, it doesnt take much to understand that in 5 years it will be worse. Statements about the current job market in 2019 are not relevant to todays medical students
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
^^^ To explain my point better, the general refrain on SDN for at least 5 years now has been that the job market is terrible and there are no good jobs. That constant refrain on SDN has not matched the reality I've seen before me for the last 5 years.

Granted, my experience has been limited to across 2 institutions for the most part, and a smattering of colleagues between.
 
I'm in practice currently, and find the job market description on SDN to be accurate. It is hard to find a job with any stability or salary > 250K. Guess how much a nurse anesthetist would make in Memphis? Two radiation oncologists there will be soon making 247K (+ some token RVU bonus on odd years if they are nice to the Chair). Duties would be heavy on inpatient consults and palliation.
Physician Scientist Assistant Professor or Above for the Department of Radiation Oncology
I remember having a laugh about this type of positions 10 years ago, but things took a turn for the worse.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
There will always be subjective differences. A life in a top 3 city is very different than a life in rural WV, even if both middle class. I don’t think that most people who post positive experiences with job search do so out of maliciousness, collusion, to please a slimy higher up and recruit more drones. Thats great some people are doing well. We must also acknowledge some are not. That is a start.

Second, the “us” vs “them” mentality is very counterproductive. If you havent felt the pain just wait as things may in fact get worst. Maybe your department was not touched. This year some places were already completely unmatched, some considered pretty good. You might be next. If people continue to have the mentality that things are fine unless they are personally affected, the field will sink.

Third, the marketing outselves better is not going to change anything. Getting a new hair product, a new empty suit on sale at Men’s Warehouse (“i guarantee it!”) is not going to change anything for the car saleman if he is selling manure. Medical students are not dumb and they see the writing on the wall. Look at our colleague’s post, dukenuke, is that person lying? Of course not.

Fourth, we have to address the crisis of leadership in this field. The ABR debacle was disgusting. We are eating our young. Many committees and padded resumes later, a “study guide” was released which was an insult to everyones intelligence. It was an empty list. Our “leaders” did nothing. In fact, we were replete with indifference, arrogance, passivity, political self promotion and did not do the right thing. Nothing was changed. The ABR is still fully in control. No true leader rose up and started a movement for change to take a look at our boards. We overtest people. There are no leaders worth a dam in this field. It is filled with puny, vindictive, little people with no balls.

I do not know how things get better but im overall negative about the field even if my personal fortunes so far seem ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Perhaps it would be apt to use a Tumor Board analogy that all ROs can relate to. When a patient is presented and you are asked to render an opinion would you say:

1. I would do "x,y,z" because I treated three patients who were exactly in this situation last month and they seem to be doing well.

*OR*

2. I would do "x,y,z" based on this published Phase III randomized trial with 1,500 enrolled patients or this meta-analysis combining multiple trials with at total of 30,000 patients.

People who post here saying that things "are probably not so bad because I'm doing ok" miss the forest for the trees. As other posters have pointed out, it is simple numbers game. Fewer fractions for radiotherapy + gross overestimate of # of ROs needed + over-production of ROs = BAD NEWS FOR THE SPECIALTY. There will always be outliers (I consider myself in that group, frankly).

I don't mind SDN being made the scapegoat as long as it results in positive change. Sometimes people need a bogey-man. The hammer will fall eventually - I am willing to bet no one posting on this board is 70 years old and immune due to imminent retirement. We will all be impacted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I'm in practice currently, and find the job market description on SDN to be accurate. It is hard to find a job with any stability or salary > 250K. Guess how much a nurse anesthetist would make in Memphis? Two radiation oncologists there will be soon making 247K (+ some token RVU bonus on odd years if they are nice to the Char). Duties would be heavy on inpatient consults and palliation.
Physician Scientist Assistant Professor or Above for the Department of Radiation Oncology
I remember having a laugh about this type of positions 10 years ago, but things took a turn for the worse.
What a joke! The job description uses the verb commiserate when I think they meant to use commensurate. What ***** would want a non-tenure track physician scientist position?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Well, you'd be surprised, the positions will fill, most likely by new grads out of state. An ambitious type will stay for 3 years or so, and move on.

What a joke! The job description uses the verb commiserate when I think they meant to use commensurate. What ***** would want a non-tenure track physician scientist position?
 
There will always be outliers (I consider myself in that group, frankly).
.

Most of us "outliers" got our jobs when times were better, even just 5-7 years ago. I suspect it's less common now... I don't see the job postings like I did 5-10 years ago.

The fall from grace for RO has been quick and brutal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
One moves from a "starter" academic job by either developing local private practice connections (gotta watch out for non-compete issues), or moving to a more reasonable academic job in a different state.

How does someone move on? The job market does not suddenly open up just because one is a few years out of training.
 
How does someone move on? The job market does not suddenly open up just because one is a few years out of training.

I’ve had faculty members tell me with a straight face that after a few years you will be deserable to a practice because you’ll have a experience. Now barring the obvious question of why am I not valuable to them upon graduation? Another question is how can you differentiate yourself experience wise when there are 200 grads in your cohort that also have been out the same amount of time. At that moment I realized just how unhelpful these people actually were outside of their narrow job description.

Also, having a good laugh reading some of the pathetically tone deaf and naive comments from Twitter. it’ll be interesting when these places are forced to take candidates they wouldn’t even have considered even 3 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Actually, I think it's true. Physician's skills do improve in first 1 or 2 after graduation, and this does make some people more employable.

I’ve had faculty members tell me with a straight face that after a few years you will be
deserable to a practice because you’ll have a experience. Now barring the obvious question of why am I not valuable to them upon graduation? Another question is how can you differentiate yourself experience wise when there are 200 grads in your cohort that also have been out the same amount of time. At that moment I realized just how unhelpful these people actually were outside of their narrow job description.

Also, having a good laugh reading some of the pathetically tone deaf and naive comments from Twitter. it’ll be interesting when these places are forced to take candidates they wouldn’t even have considered even 3 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I’ve had faculty members tell me with a straight face that after a few years you will be deserable to a practice because you’ll have a experience. Now barring the obvious question of why am I not valuable to them upon graduation? Another question is how can you differentiate yourself experience wise when there are 200 grads in your cohort that also have been out the same amount of time. At that moment I realized just how unhelpful these people actually were outside of their narrow job description.

Also, having a good laugh reading some of the pathetically tone deaf and naive comments from Twitter. it’ll be interesting when these places are forced to take candidates they wouldn’t even have considered even 3 years ago.

This is absolutely the case for any procedural specialties. An experienced surgeon or IRs are much more employable because they have a track record of working by themselves rather than have others back them up
 
I agree that there's a lot of growth that happens in the first few years as an attending.

I just haven't seen the job market opening up in the first few years for the people I know in my cohort. I think fpg1245's concern is right on. Between all the new grads, attendings dissatisfied in their positions, and practices trying to save money by hiring only junior level people and hoping they can force them to stay there for the long-term at a low rate, I haven't seen some sizable pool of quality jobs only available to the experienced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
The nail in the coffin was not the job situation. Ya it’s not great but as someone said that’s been going on for a few years. The nail was the ABR boards debacle. So for years we’ve passed at relatively high numbers. And this year all of a sudden 50% of people fail one or more exam? And then the people responsible take this as some joke? I didn’t follow this when it happened but the more I learned the more sick I got thinking about how cruel lisa and wallner were. Just disgusted. Their action will echo in this field for years to come. They should be held accountable
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
The nail in the coffin was not the job situation. Ya it’s not great but as someone said that’s been going on for a few years. The nail was the ABR boards debacle. So for years we’ve passed at relatively high numbers. And this year all of a sudden 50% of people fail one or more exam? And then the people responsible take this as some joke? I didn’t follow this when it happened but the more I learned the more sick I got thinking about how cruel lisa and wallner were. Just disgusted. Their action will echo in this field for years to come. They should be held accountable

I'm just gonna repost their response article one more time for anyone who may not have read it.....

 
I don't know enough about how twitter works. I thought that you could remove posts from being seen if they were a reply to you. I apologize if this is not correct, and since I don't use twitter I will redact this post.
 
How can you remove posts on twitter? Who has authority to remove posts on twitter? I don't have a twitter because the people who seem to post on it seem to mostly be very egotistical and I'm just a nobody.
 
Last edited:
I don't know who's removing them, but come on. That's really disingenuous to just remove dissenting opinions but leave up GIFs that do nothing but attempt to discredit and mock SDN.
The only people that can remove twitter posts are the accounts that posted them or twitter.
 
The Memes were funny. Guess it's cool to post memes as Rad Oncs about super serious topics.

I'm not a meme wizard, but if somebody could replace the text with "SDNNNNNNNNNNNN!" I think I'm onto something here for the old attendings who feel that SDN is the ONLY ISSUE in regards to the field of Radiation Oncology. Not the ABR Rad Bio/Physics boards issue, not oversupply, not job market, not anything else. Just SDN.

upload_2019-3-12_13-45-41.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Twitter ain't anonymous. It's easy to ask someone to delete their post.
 
Wowza. If this isn't fake news, hopefully it wakes up somebody in leadership.

EDIT - Just confirmed on the spreadsheet. IIRC, posting the names of the programs is against NRMP rules, so please do not mention the programs by name. For those interested in reading, the names of the programs are listed in the google spreadsheet.

Do you have a link for the spreadsheet ?
 
If we want to have an "evidence based discussion" on whether twitter vs. sdn is right (hint: there is no good data), the best data to look at is MGMA data and AAMC data for salary as well as CMS spending data and Millman data on private insurance spending on radiation oncology.

MGMA, AAMC, and other data do not support the notion that the sky is falling for radiation oncology (we are still compensated quite well).
CMS (See Alhassani, NEJM 2003 for how much rad onc spending has increased between 2003 and 2013) and Millman 2014 data to see we are still about 3-4% of spending on cancer in the private insurance market.

I think rad onc is an incredibly cost effective way to make a huge difference for our patients. Yes, hypofx etc will hit our revenue and big academics taking over satellites and taking advantage of desperate graduates is bad for the field, but lots of SRS/SBRT/more IMRT/oligomets also make a difference on the other end.

And yes, most of the friends I know (subjective, limited sample size, non-published) say the job market is good this year and they are getting solid private/academic offers.

I do think we are probably over-expanded and perhaps ACGME criteria should change to reflect modern needs of rad onc to get rid of a few programs (or programs should self-reflect if their grads are getting bad jobs), but while its good to admit some of the future uncertainties and limitations in terms of geographical flexibility for example, I do also think rad onc is an awesome field and would continue to tell them my personal experience in the field in person or on twitter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Perhaps it would be apt to use a Tumor Board analogy that all ROs can relate to. When a patient is presented and you are asked to render an opinion would you say:

1. I would do "x,y,z" because I treated three patients who were exactly in this situation last month and they seem to be doing well.

*OR*

2. I would do "x,y,z" based on this published Phase III randomized trial with 1,500 enrolled patients or this meta-analysis combining multiple trials with at total of 30,000 patients.

People who post here saying that things "are probably not so bad because I'm doing ok" miss the forest for the trees. As other posters have pointed out, it is simple numbers game. Fewer fractions for radiotherapy + gross overestimate of # of ROs needed + over-production of ROs = BAD NEWS FOR THE SPECIALTY. There will always be outliers (I consider myself in that group, frankly).

I don't mind SDN being made the scapegoat as long as it results in positive change. Sometimes people need a bogey-man. The hammer will fall eventually - I am willing to bet no one posting on this board is 70 years old and immune due to imminent retirement. We will all be impacted.

I see hypofractionation being mentioned quite often as being "bad" for specialty but I have never seen any solid data for this. Yes I understand that means less fractions to bill for, but that doesn't mean less rad onc "demand". In fact, there are many instances where convenience of hypofrac may make a patient likely to choose radiation (ie prostate SBRT). Very strange to see it constantly presented something contributing to the fall of the specialty when something like SBRT injected new life into it.

I don't think its a simple numbers game as you describe - complex systems do not behave in predictable ways. Reimbursement policies can change practices quickly (derm no long doing skin brachytherapy). Imagine if one those oligomet trials hits a home run - who knows what demand will be 10 years from now. I'm not saying I know it will go up or down, but telling med students you can predict with any accuracy what demand will be is a disservice to them.

There's a crises in the specialty right now. At the risk of sounding cliche', going forward what if we didn't ask what the field could be doing better for us, but how we (practitioners concerned about the state of affairs) could serve the field better. How many of us participate in advocacy? How many have ever lobbied? How many donate time or money to ROI (or equivalent)? How many here are enrolling on pro-radiation trials (oligomet, surgery vs. radiation, etc)? How many serve on hospital committees or leadership? Maybe we are all more responsible for the current state of affairs than we like to admit
 
Perhaps people were deleting their own posts due to fear of repercussions. Speaks to the fact that SDN is quite representative of the general pulse of our field. It's amazing how the response too all of this is that we need to do better PR.

There's the radbio/physics board debacle that was, quite frankly, cruelly handled by those who orchestrated it. (The Angoff method though!)
There's the people who are actually looking for jobs saying that the job market is tight. ("The job market is fine!" - some academic who hasn't searched for a job in years)
There's the problem of residency expansion. (it will self regulate. small programs are the problem. people don't know enough about the field. people matched into backup specialties)

There is absolutely no leadership in our field. No one is willing to make difficult decisions. Accepting that the ABR messed up would mean admitting fault and we all know how big the egos are in the Ivory Tower world of academia. Trying to find some way to curb residency expansion would mean that Academics don't have cheap scut monkeys to do their work.

The answer to all of this IS NOT TO GET MORE PEOPLE INTERESTED IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY because THE PROBLEM IS NOT A LACK OF INTEREST. Does anyone actually believe that dermatology is so competitive because people just LOVE skin?

Radiation oncology is an incredible field. There are few people in the field that don't love what they do. However, unless the leaders in our field work towards improving the prospect of those WITHIN the field, medical students are going to be less and less interested in actually entering it. If the long-term goal of the ABR failing everyone trying to COMPLETE residency was to convince people not to even ENTER residency, it seems to be working pretty well.
 
I think rad onc is an incredibly cost effective way to make a huge difference for our patients. Yes, hypofx etc will hit our revenue and big academics taking over satellites and taking advantage of desperate graduates is bad for the field, but lots of SRS/SBRT/more IMRT/oligomets also make a difference on the other end.

And yes, most of the friends I know (subjective, limited sample size, non-published) say the job market is good this year and they are getting solid private/academic offers.

I do think we are probably over-expanded and perhaps ACGME criteria should change to reflect modern needs of rad onc to get rid of a few programs (or programs should self-reflect if their grads are getting bad jobs), but while its good to admit some of the future uncertainties and limitations in terms of geographical flexibility for example, I do also think rad onc is an awesome field and would continue to tell them my personal experience in the field in person or on twitter.

Cosigned
 
The Memes were funny. Guess it's cool to post memes as Rad Oncs about super serious topics.

I'm not a meme wizard, but if somebody could replace the text with "SDNNNNNNNNNNNN!" I think I'm onto something here for the old attendings who feel that SDN is the ONLY ISSUE in regards to the field of Radiation Oncology. Not the ABR Rad Bio/Physics boards issue, not oversupply, not job market, not anything else. Just SDN.

View attachment 253650

Ask and you shall receive...

upload_2019-3-12_16-31-36.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
What an embarrassment this field has become. All because of greed.
 
I'm in practice currently, and find the job market description on SDN to be accurate. It is hard to find a job with any stability or salary > 250K. Guess how much a nurse anesthetist would make in Memphis? Two radiation oncologists there will be soon making 247K (+ some token RVU bonus on odd years if they are nice to the Chair). Duties would be heavy on inpatient consults and palliation.
Physician Scientist Assistant Professor or Above for the Department of Radiation Oncology
I remember having a laugh about this type of positions 10 years ago, but things took a turn for the worse.

Thank you for mention this memphis job!
Except the money, just be extremely careful if anyone wants to go there.
 
The scapegoating of SDN on the twitter thread is unfair and actually insulting to medical students who are really smart and careful to make good decisions regarding speciality choice. The most important and influential resource for medical students are the current residents in their home program because those are the people med students hang out with in the resident room, become friends with, and can feel comfortable having open and candid discussions about where to do aways, how to rank programs, and the state of the field. So instead of scapegoating SDN, the better question is what are current residents in academic programs across the country telling med students that is turning them away from the field?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Good news, everyone. The job market issue is being solved by ACGME. Apparently they are considering making a minimum residency program size. 6 or greater residents for accreditation. That means all the small programs will close, right? Right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Risk losing accreditation and cheap labour... or expand to ensure accrediation and even more cheap labour! Wow, this Shakespearean play writes itself.
 
What in the world is wrong with the attendings posting on Twitter. When rad onc was competitive, the med students with a longstanding interest in oncology, who'd worked with rad onc at their department to publish and prep for 3-4 clinical rad onc rotations, with great board scores and grades because of hard work, these med students that're choosing IR and med onc now. And whoever SOAP's into these 26 unfilled positions, who didn't even know rad onc existed till this week, and just want a job, these students are now going into our field for the "right reasons?" How delusional can you get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I doubt this will happen. Most of "new" spots are in programs that are > 6 positions now, not the "startups".

Good news, everyone. The job market issue is being solved by ACGME. Apparently they are considering making a minimum residency program size. 6 or greater residents for accreditation. That means all the small programs will close, right? Right?
 
Good news, everyone. The job market issue is being solved by ACGME. Apparently they are considering making a minimum residency program size. 6 or greater residents for accreditation. That means all the small programs will close, right? Right?
What is your source for this information?
 
Good news, everyone. The job market issue is being solved by ACGME. Apparently they are considering making a minimum residency program size. 6 or greater residents for accreditation. That means all the small programs will close, right? Right?

I'm assuming this is sarcasm?
 
Good news, everyone. The job market issue is being solved by ACGME. Apparently they are considering making a minimum residency program size. 6 or greater residents for accreditation. That means all the small programs will close, right? Right?
That would be ~20 programs (20 spots a year). Isn't that what everyone here wants?

If you're serious about wanting to limit the # of spots, this is the legally the easiest first step.
 
Why wouldnt the smaller programs just increase size to meet the new minimum criteria?
 
That would be ~20 programs (20 spots a year). Isn't that what everyone here wants?

If you're serious about wanting to limit the # of spots, this is the legally the easiest first step.

That would lead to every program with 4 residents total expanding to 6 residents total. Extremely shortsighted IMO.
 
Top